SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(All) 170

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
J.J. MUNIR, J.
Preetam Signh and Others - Appellants
Versus
Smt. Urmila Devi and Others - Respondents
First Appeal From Order No. 1111 of 2019 With First Appeal From Order No. 2886 of 2011
Decided On : 19-01-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Ram Singh.
For the Respondent: Deepali Srivastava Sinha, Amit Kumar Sinha, Siddarth Jaiswal, Vidya Kant Shukla.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 279, 337, 338, 304A - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166, 168 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XLI Rule 27 - U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 - Rule 220-A(3) - Enhancement of compensation - Appeal preferred by claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded – Held, An accident leading to death of a child causes great shock and agony to parents and family of deceased - Greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime - In view of what this Court has found, compensation payable to claimants in this appeal would have to be revised - It is ordered that compensation awarded by this judgment and award shall be payable by insurer and not owner - Impugned award passed by Tribunal is modified and compensation awarded is enhanced - FAFO allowed.

JUDGMENT :

1. This judgement will dispose of FAFO No. 1111 of 2019 and FAFO No. 2886 of 2011.

2. Both the appeals relate to the same accident and arise out of the same impugned judgment and award dated 24.02.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Additional District Judge, Court No. 14, Allahabad rendered in MACP No. 657 of 2008. Accordingly, both the appeals are being decided by this common judgment.

3. FAFO No. 1111 of 2019 shall be treated as the leading case and facts noticed from the said appeal. It must be mentioned at the outset that the leading appeal is by the owner upon whom liability to satisfy the impugned award has been fastened. The appeal seeks to absolve the owner and shift liability upon the Insurance Company. The connected appeal, that is to say, FAFO No. 2886 of 2011 has been preferred by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded.

4. Heard Mr. Ram Singh on behalf of the appellant-owner, Mr. Siddharth Jaiswal, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 4, the Insurance Company and Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the claimant-respondents.

5. Hereinafter, the appellant-owner shall be called ''the owner', the Insurance Company, ''the insurers', and the claimant-respondents, ''the claimants'.

6. In the connected appeal, Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, learned Counsel has been heard on behalf of the claimants in support of the appeal, Mr. Siddharth Jaiswal, Advocate, on behalf of the insurers and Mr. Ram Singh, learned Counsel for the owner.

7. The facts giving rise to the appeal are these: On August, the 22nd, 2008 at 1.30 P.M., one Ram Chandra alias Babu Lal Yadav, a man of 25 years, was riding a Honda motorcycle bearing No. UP70AL/4090. Rajesh Yadav was on the pillion. The two were proceeding from Mansurabad to Lal Gopal Ganj on the Allahabad-Lucknow Highway. As the two reached Khuda Baksh ka Pura (Shringverpur), a roadways bus approached from the Lucknow end of the highway. It was a vehicle held on contract, bearing registration No. UP53T/7042. It was driven rashly and negligently. The bus struck the motorcycle, leading the rider and the pillion to sustain injuries. Both the injured were carried to the Swaroop Rani Nehru, Hospital, Allahabad, where they were admitted for necessary medical attention. Ram Chandra succumbed to his injuries, whereas the pillion rider, Rajesh Yadav was in a critical condition, whose right leg was fractured and grievous injuries sustained to his head. About this incident, the deceased Ram Chandra's father lodged a First Information Report with P.S. Nawabganj, Allahabad, that was registered as Crime No. 28 of 2008, under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304A IPC. At the time of his demise, the deceased was aged about 25 years and had established a shop selling sweets and tea. It is the claimants' case that the deceased by his exertions would earn about Rs. 7,000/- per mensem. The claimants are the deceased's widow, father, mother and a child born posthumously. The claimants petitioned the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ''the ''Act') seeking compensation in the sum of Rs. 10 lacs with interest.

8. The opposite party No. 1 to the claim petition, ''the owner' of the vehicle, who is the appellant here, put in a written statement and denied the allegations in the petition. It is averred in the additional plea that the offending vehicle was insured with the insurers,vide Cover Note No.343637 valid and effective from 23.7.2008 to 22.7.2009. The insurers have been asserted to be answerable regarding any claim that may be decreed against the owner relating to the accident caused by the offending vehicle. It was asserted that on the date and time of the accident, the vehicle was being driven by Mohd. Saleem son of Sri Sabir Ali, who held a valid driving licence to drive the vehicle. The licence held by the dr

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

          Please visit our Training & Support
          Center or Contact Us for assistance

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top